8/14/2019 Green Agreements

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/green-agreements 1/4

Green agreementsBy Miguel Paolo CelestialPublished in Garage Magazine, Premier issue, August-September 2008 

Scientists and experts have predicted serious repercussions if we do not act now to prevent further climate change.

It seems no matter what we do, we end up damaging the environment: with theturn of a car key, a flick of a light switch, the click of a mouse, one press todispense ice from the fridge, or a quick turn of the shower knob. The only thingleft is for everybody to be penalized for hyperventilating and exhaling too muchCO2 from worrying about the climate.

Everything leaves a carbon footprint, they say. Al Gore has spoken and the

Swedish Academy and the rest of the world have thanked him – slideshow, clout,and all – for helping point it out. “Finally!” cried the scientists, their sighs recallingpolar bears swimming across icecaps, burning off fat, but without hope of reaching receding land.

Awareness has spread apprehension like invisible plankton. Not undeservedly,given the possible scenarios, to wit: extreme weather that may mean worse or more frequent storms, floods, droughts, and heatwaves; the spread of diseases;drier deserts and wetter tropics tantamount to the reduction of arable land andtherefore food; melting Arctic and Antarctic glaciers and mountain caps that couldlead to higher sea levels and submerged cities; and the warming of the oceans

that could cause the loss of habitats and the displacement or endangerment of species.

There may never have been a vision as apocalyptic as what experts havepredicted. Worse than Nostradamus? Yet the real question is, has the worldresponded with the same zeal as researchers and scientists? Have we faced thisiceberg of a problem with much more weighing below the surface?

Sincerity has no half-life

To prevent impending catastrophe, scientists have proposed a concertedreduction of emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases throughfive means: using alternative or renewable sources of energy; being moreefficient with energy usage; collecting or capturing carbon, methane, and other gases for storage or combustion; and preventing more deforestation.

Of these four, only the first two seem relevant to the ordinary citizen. First, withthe insatiable rise of fuel prices, the prospect of shifting from gasoline to biofuel

8/14/2019 Green Agreements

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/green-agreements 2/4

seems more and more tempting, even if a majority of motorists remain shy of hybrid electric vehicles or fuel-cell cars that run on hydrogen, much more thosemodified to combust used cooking oil. We are stuck with this initiative since useof other sources of energy are only up to electricity suppliers (wind, hydroelectric,and nuclear power), a matter of technology (biomass), or still too expensive for 

ordinary retail customers (solar energy).

The second solution to prevent catastrophe – conserving energy – has not onlyserved as fodder for activist and media campaigns, but also as inspiration for thelatest runway fashions. Environmental awareness has become the new zeitgeist,the newest conversation piece, fad, and measure for coolness. It has outzennedzen, yoga, vegetarianism, and pilates, even beaten the trend of Hollywoodcelebrities adopting third world children. AIDS has been made passé. Eco-chic isnow the next social requirement.

This redefined theme has been appropriated by the billion-dollar industries of 

fashion, design, and general consumer products. From clothes, bags, and shoesto packaging, furniture, and automobiles, this ethic has been echoed. Down withextravagance! Welcome to the dawn of the new responsible lifestyle!

But how much can we really do, are we really doing, through feedbags andorganic or recyclable materials of which production, according to some recentstudies at least, actually require more carbon emissions than the usual plastic?Are we really saving enough energy by installing a bed of plants on our roofs tolessen the need for air conditioning? Are we being friendly to the environment bybuying another dress or pair of trousers made from organic materials and dyedorganically when, to begin with, our closets do not need additional pieces for atleast the next few seasons?

Maybe we are merely buying into a trend to ease our consumerist consciences.Or we are probably bored with our leather bags and want more synthetics andcanvas. A new and nifty car to get ahead of the Joneses? A better question:aren’t we still pressing too many buttons of too many appliances and gadgetsthat we have so gotten used to that we don’t dare question their necessity?

This is partially answered by gogreen.theconsortium.co.uk, a blog about “eco-friendly business”:

“You could save electricity by not leaving your TV on standby, because you don’t really need to leave your TV on standby. But then again, standby mode addsfunctionality and improves the user experience. You could save electricity by watching less TV. You could just stop watching TV, and go for a run. Better yet 

 plant some trees. You’d get some exercise, you’d save electricity, you’d help thecarbon/oxygen balance and you’d feel good about yourself…” 

All it suggests is that every single sheet of environmentally friendly tissue doesn’t

8/14/2019 Green Agreements

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/green-agreements 3/4

seem enough to wipe away our oily excess.

Buying carbon clemency

So we don’t even dare to imagine radically simple lifestyles we feel are reservedto hermits, reclusive artists, and the rest of the insane. We point the finger togovernments and corporations that are more capable of preventing carboncatastrophes. After all, we say, lowly consumers squirming in alibi, they are theones that caused all this pollution in the first place.

As funny as excuses may sound, what may be more tragic are governmentssquabbling about who has polluted more and how much environmentalcommitment should be required of each, like children on the guard on who getsmore cookies. True, there must be fairness in everything, but not to the point thatnothing gets done except endless empty chatter. To their credit though, at least

they have agreed that industries have to be more environmentally friendly.

Many companies have complied in “reducing” their carbon emissions, even if indirectly, through carbon offsetting. Companies produce carbon emissions via amultitude of things, from direct energy consumption, employee travel (fuel burnedfor transportation), equipment use and disposal (fuel and impact of byproductsand depreciated machines), raw materials (fuel used for production andprocesses), and recycling (extent of non-wastage).

Carbon offsetting, its supporters argue, achieves the four strategies listed earlier aimed at decreasing carbon emissions. It does this by facilitating funding for projects that execute them directly. In this sense, companies are not required toreduce carbon emissions themselves, from their own operations and activities,but only to buy “carbon offsets”. Let us suspend our keen judgment and reviewwhat some corporations have contributed.

Siemens and GE have innovated towards energy-efficient products through their locomotives, power reactors, jet engines, gas turbines, and lights. For theautomobile industry, Toyota and Honda have produced plug-in hybrid cars, whileNissan, Mitsubishi Motors, and Mazda are developing their own versions.

DuPont has saved on energy costs by using methane emitted from landfill sitesto power its industrial boilers. Wal-Mart has also consumed less energy on itstrucks by using auxiliary engines when they are idle or at rest stops.

BSkyB has bought its offsets by helping finance renewable energy via awindfarm in Manawatu Gorge, New Zealand and a hydroelectric power project inSandanski, Bulgaria.

HSBC has paid for methane capture in Victoria, Australia and Sanbeiendorf,

8/14/2019 Green Agreements

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/green-agreements 4/4

Germany. Other companies doing the same in Sanbeiendorf are Radio Taxis,Avis, and Berkley Homes. Methane capture is also conducted in Greene County,US, where Silverjet as a donor.

Reforestation is also a way to earn carbon offsets. Cooperative Bank has

financed tropical reforestation in Kibale National Park, Uganda. The companyalso provides for diesel replacement in Chhatishgarh, India. The World Bankmeanwhile spends for a pongamia plantation in Powerguda, India.

These are just a few examples. Certainly, there may be more exemplary modelsof environmental awareness, but just as we should be wary of our personalintentions in going green, we should ask exactly how these corporations aremotivated.

Does it all come down to improving company image by presenting a greenveneer of corporate responsibility, which coincidentally adds to an intangible

asset called societal goodwill, or brand value?

Needless to say, for-profit organizations exist for profit, and they would not doanything without financial recompense. But, can we say that even though theymay only promote themselves and even exaggerate their niggardly initiatives,they are able to effect some good – reducing carbon emissions – and achievethe prescription of scientists and the target of talks and negotiations of globalleaders?

Is this not the same as forgiving a fashion addict who uses 50 differentenvironmentally friendly shopping bags to match her outfits, one for every shadeand degree of consumer guilt?